,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This, by @bernardjenkin on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, is misleading to the point of being wrong. ft.com/content/dca120… 
The statement that the PM, after a vote of no confidence, does not have to resign for up to 14 days, ignores the position that obtains if it is clear at the time of the vote or later during the 14 days that an alternative candidate, C, would win a vote of confidence.
In that situation, there is pretty much a consensus among constitutional lawyers that the PM would have to resign and that the Queen should then invite C to form a government.
That has always been the position on the loss of a vote of confidence or equivalent (Queen’s Speech; budget) where there was an alternative government that could command the House.
Plenty of 19C precedents (eg 1852, Aberdeen appointed to replace Derby). There is nothing in the FTPA to suggest that that position has changed.
If the PM refused to resign, the Queen has the power to dismiss him. Which she would have to use.
(To be clear, “C” here stands for “candidate”.)
NB a further important point. @bernardjenkin’s claim about the effect of the FTPA is a claim about the interpretation of a statute.
A claim about the interpretation of a statute is a claim about the law. It is a question on which the courts must (if asked) adjudicate.
So Jenkin’s claim contains within it the seeds of its own potential destruction: a court could, properly, decide that it is wrong.
